Minchburn Ltd v Fernandez
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 280 (6309) 8 November 1986 p770-771(2)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: CA 14 April 1986. Appeal by defendant tenant against previous decision by County Court judge granting the plaintiff landlords possession of the tenant`s bedsitting-room. Her tenancy was a statutory tenancy protected by the Rent Act 1977 . The landlord sought possession on the ground of provision of suitable alternative accommodation. The tenant rejected the accommodation offered, her main objection being that it was noisier than her present room. The previous judge, on visiting the alternative accommodation , decided that the noise was not excessive and so made an order for possession. In making this judgement for the landlords, the judge had not taken all relevant matters into consideration, he had stated that the only matter which he had to decide upon was whether the alternative accommodation was unsuitable because of noise. There was no indication that he had directed his mind to the issue of reasonableness , for example there was no mention of the great length of time for which| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37101 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 2311-1001 |
CA 14 April 1986. Appeal by defendant tenant against previous decision by County Court judge granting the plaintiff landlords possession of the tenant`s bedsitting-room. Her tenancy was a statutory tenancy protected by the Rent Act 1977 . The landlord sought possession on the ground of provision of suitable alternative accommodation. The tenant rejected the accommodation offered, her main objection being that it was noisier than her present room. The previous judge, on visiting the alternative accommodation , decided that the noise was not excessive and so made an order for possession. In making this judgement for the landlords, the judge had not taken all relevant matters into consideration, he had stated that the only matter which he had to decide upon was whether the alternative accommodation was unsuitable because of noise. There was no indication that he had directed his mind to the issue of reasonableness , for example there was no mention of the great length of time for which